I never said replace her with another figurehead. That would be pointless. The point is that you don't need a figurehead.

You need someone to lead the country, of that there is no doubt. Any PM will please some and not others. As for royalty, they serve little purpose in this day and age. They've proven time after time that they are no better than you or me. Prince Philip wants to shut the **** up. Charles married and it went tits up. I mean what have they above your ordinary people? They were born into a tradition. They still fall foul of the same pitfalls as the rest of us. They talk posh, that's all.....

I prefer this system. I like having a prime minister who's a member of, and responsible to, the legislature, in which case it's impossible for him to be head of state too.

What do you have against them anyway?

Other than the fact that we pay for them and that, as Elly put it, their position is an accident of birth? I also dislke the idea that we should revere a family who leeches off of us. It's a bit like me stealing money from you every week and then asking you to kiss my hand for the privilege.

You need someone to lead the country, of that there is no doubt. Any PM will please some and not others. As for royalty, they serve little purpose in this day and age. They've proven time after time that they are no better than you or me. Prince Philip wants to shut the f**k up. Charles married and it went tits up. I mean what have they above your ordinary people? They were born into a tradition. They still fall foul of the same pitfalls as the rest of us. They talk posh, that's all.....

I know that you need someone to lead the country. I said that you don't need a figurehead.

We couldn't make it on our own, and even if we could I wouldn't want us to. I'm a pro-monarchy, anti-nationalist Scot (and Christian) think I'm in the minority in all 3 cases

I am pro-monarchy, anti-nationalist, but strongly atheist.

My flatmate is extremely nationalistic, and he has still to put to me, a convincing argument that nationalism is the way forward economically. I feel many vote SNP out of pride.

If we were independent, there is no way that the Scottish government could have bailed out RBS, no fecking way.

I am proud to be both Scottish and British, and have a strong sense of identity from both nationalities.

Although on the subject of the royal family, I must make my stance clear that I dislike Prince Charles with an absolute passion, and if he were to ascend to the throne, I would probably be against the monarchy, seems bizarre, but that's the way I feel.

As Hazel mentioned, the cost to the taxpayer is probably lower then a presidency would cost, when you take into account the tourism generated by having an active monarchy.I don't have anything against them, and if they were lucky enough to be born into it good luck to them. Although, I don't think it's as easy as you make out - you get scrutinised every moment of the day, and have to act a certain way whether you like it or not.

I don't know enough about the consequences of independence to put forward an educated opinion. I want what's best for Scotland. I'm indifferent towards the rest of Britain.

At least you are honest about that, James. I can't say I'm qualified either, but it's like atheism vs theism. The nationalists are the one making the leap of faith, the SNP need to quantify their claims.

As Hazel mentioned, the cost to the taxpayer is probably lower then a presidency would cost, when you take into account the tourism generated by having an active monarchy.I don't have anything against them, and if they were lucky enough to be born into it good luck to them. Although, I don't think it's as easy as you make out - you get scrutinised every moment of the day, and have to act a certain way whether you like it or not.

As I said before, I'm not talking about replacing the queen with another figurehead. I'm fine with a cost to the taxpayer if the leader serves a significant purpose and is actually elected, as opposed to being born into affluence at our expense.